Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I got the idea for this topic from a chat I had with an American workmate today. She reckoned that it would be a long shot that America would have a president of the non-Anglo-Saxon status quo in our lifetime. But she reckoned that if there were, it would probably be a woman.

I don't know very much about the US political dynamic, but I'd reckon she's right. I also reckon that an atheist would be the least likely to become a US president - well, racerx's discussion about America's preception of atheists comes to mind.

The poll is finite, but I'd just like to get your opinions. Especially about when the US will get the first president who differs from the present status quo, and to which party you'd think they'll belong. As well, I'd like to know who you think who be the least likely to become president.

(Uhhh...... just to make things less complicated, we'll ignore the issue of whether they're the right candidate or not. Let's just say that they are. )

Hm, that's tricky. I'm thinking it'll either be a black man or white woman. I say black man, though, I just feel that's who the public would vote for.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was a non-Christian, so that category is already done.

_________________

Aww crap..... me and my ongoing battle with poll-writing. It didn't put in my "none of the above" option. Oh well.



Hmm..... his Wiki page says that he's a Christian deist, though. I suppose "non-Christian" is a loose term, but I more mean someone who's religion differs completely from the core aspects of Christianity.

It's hard to say. I'd probably think a white woman or black man, like Ju Ju, but I picked white woman in this poll, just because I think Hillary has a good shot.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Not Hilary.

I voted White Woman, but now that I think about it, I think a Black Man will probably get it first.

_________________

I say other, and by other i mean an Athiest Gay Black Woman.

It will never happen, but its closer to happening than anything else.

_________________

Are you kidding me? There are plenty of strong women in Washington. I definitely think there will be a woman in the Oval Office, and because of her politics, not because she's a woman.

_________________

I dunno...... I'd say an atheist but that's probably not gonna happen soon based on the way politics are going right now. Are you sure all the presidents have been Christian? I have some doubts about that......

A woman SHOULD and COULD be president, but whether she will any time soon is the question. I'm not sure if they could or not. But a woman has been Prime Minister. Shows how far ahead the UK is from us.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Actually, Einoo, as I posted earlier, Thomas Jefferson was not, and was pretty vocal about it. While he conceded that religion was important to society, he was also quite vocal about not believing in Christianity. He even published his own "Bible" to demonstrate his point.

_________________

And I'm quite sure the Bible states not to edit anything in it. Or the fate is very heavy.

And how could you possibly edit all the miracles Jesus did? The Bible is filled with over 70% of miracles.

His version of the "Bible" must be very short.

Not to mention the fact that it deystroy's the very thing Christian's need to depend upon: Salvation.

I would vote for an African American. I would really like to see that one day.

I too would have to say either a Black man or a White woman. I'd have to say that right now I'm seeing more of a possibility for black males, they've been storming every facet of the government as of late and they'd most likely have a good amount of the minority vote (which, when stacked up against the white majority is getting more and more powerful by the year).

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

I voted "white woman" because that's a very large demographic. Also, women have been historically treated better than minority races in the United States... we didn't enslave women, for example. We enslaved people who happened to be women, but we didn't enslave anybody because they were women. I don't know what's worse today, sexism or racism, but I'd guess racism...

But oh, how shallow of us to choose one candidate or another based not on issues, but on what color their skin is or what anatomy they were born with!

- Kef

I voted white woman. I personally think it's a toss up between black man and white woman. I think if one becomes president the other isn't far behind.

_________________

Black males got voting rights before white females, though, didn't they?

Anymore, it seems like both sides of the spectrum are so cued on pandering to certain groups that it wouldn't suprise me to see "you could vote for the other side, but their candidate is white. You'd be a racist because we have a black candidate" (or replace white with man, black with female, and racist with sexist).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Funny...I thought the Bible as it is now has already gone through PLENTY of edits throughout history...like when King James retranslated it, didn't he cut out a lot of stuff, too?



We could have both at once if Michael Jackson became president! *shudders*

Anyways, I agree with Strong Rad--no matter what type of minority we get first, they'll be parading it around and slandering the other side for being "prejudice" as much as they can. Lousy muckrakers. And I also suspect that there will be someone still prejudice enough (hey, the KKK is still around, unfortunately) that the first President Elect that's a minority might have an assassination attempt on them.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

African-American males got the right to vote 50 years before women.

If you think he did a lot of editing, you should see the amount of stuff the Catholic Church omitted. They have vaults full of religious texts they kept out of the Bible. But that is for another conversation.

Edit: PMG, the KKK is so small now, they aren't even on the radar anymore.

Toastpaint.

_________________

Yeah, but if I recall correclty, it wasn't well enforced until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. White people still tried as best as they could to keep Black people from voting, creating phony tests for literacy and such (like having a standard literacy test for White people and something in Chinese for Black people).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Well, we have versions of the Bible much earlier than that, so I'd say no. In fact, when Martin Luther and John Calvin started reforms, they realized that the Catholic church had been preaching the Bible wrong / mis-translating it, so it would make sense that they must have had copies that didn't undergo very many changes. At least that's what I think. Of course there have been changes, especially from language to language, but I don't think they affect the message of the Bible in any way.

_________________

I will agree that KJV is not the most accurate translation. It was based on incomplete Greek manuscripts that were supplemented by the Vulgate. These manuscripts, collectively referred to as the Western Texts, are not considered nearly as accurate as the Syriac and Byzantine families.

However, I myself and most modern translators use the most ancient Greek and Hebrew texts of the Syriac and Byzantine families, not those the KJV relied on, which means that most modern translations are much more reliable than KJV.

However, it doesn't really matter nearly as much as most people think. The textual variations are less than 1% of the entire biblical texts, and the vast majority of them in no way effect the overall theme of their context.

But there is a huge difference between these relatively minor textual variations and the deliberate editions that Pres. Jefferson made. Jefferson was deliberately trying to change the message of Scripture to fit his reductionistic worldview.

_________________

I had a very similar conversation with a friend of mine. She believed that if a woman were elected, that someone might become enraged and try to assassinate her, based on prejudice. While I'm not sure that would happen, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Personally, though, if a minority candidate were on the ballot representing the same values as myself, I'd vote for that person. Black, Asian, female, Jewish, doesn't matter, as long as they can meet the demands of the presidency.

_________________

I think that the field is too broad, so much so that I can't decide. Gosh, some of these sound very possible to happen soon, and could happen at the same time. I think that splitting the polls into race, religion, and sexual orientation categories would be more enlightening for me. But heck, I wouldn't even be able to decide among those either, so.. silly me. (I keep thinking, Is a white woman going to president first? Sure. A black woman? Sure. A black man? Sure. Arr, but ties aren't allowed!)

_________________
dot dot dot

I remember I was having an interesting discussion once with my American Government teacher. Many people believe that Hillary Clinton will run as the Democratic Party candidate in '08. My teacher proposed the following "what if:" What if the Republican Party candidate was Condolezza Rice? (Whether or not she would actually run wasn't the issue of the discussion, since it was all speculation.) What would that race be like? Whether or not the country wanted it, they would be forced into having a female President. Would this sway their thoughts on their election? Might independed party votes suddenly soar? It was an interesting talk. Getting suspicious of the American public, might Hillary win simply because some people wouldn't want a black President, male or female?

I KNOW there will be a female President in my lifetime. When you think about it, the US is actually rather far behind when it comes to minority leaders. A lot more (supposedly) less "socially open" nations than us have had female and minority leaders, and us? I mean, we shouldn't elect a woman President just because we need one, but why don't more women show up in that level of politics? I think it's a good question. Glass ceiling? I don't think it's for lack of interest, because women are just as passionate about their political causes as men.

_________________
You look like you need a hug.
*hug*
There, now don't you feel better?

Wasn't it rumored that previously one of our presidents were gay? Hmm, I need to find the link....

I'd expect female presidents will be first, though.

_________________

Not sure about a president being gay, but there's been a lot of speculation as to the relationship between Eleanor Roosevelt and her best friend, also a female.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

My U.S. History teacher would say Millard Fillmore was gay (one of the bits he used to help us remember the order of the presidents... whenever he'd come up in the list, he'd make this wavy motion with his hand to remind us). However, I never found any supporting evidence. There is some evidence that James Buchanan was gay, though, or was at least involved in a gay relationship.

- Kef

There's always speculation about people in the public eye.

But I think WHF's intended meaning is an openly gay president elect. In other words, would the American people vote for a candidate who is openly gay.

_________________

I'm Canadian so what do I know about US voters? See, we've already had an female Prime Minister. Also, and about half our Prime Ministers were francophone with the other half being anglophone, so we're used to having leaders from different cultural backgrounds.
Keep in mind that Kim Campbell (of Canada) wasn't actual elected PM... she was elected MP and then won her party's leadership when the elected PM Brian Mulrooney (from her party) resigned as PM. So, nobody elected her PM (and she lost the election she called). Unlike Gerald Ford (who was appointed VP and then acceded to the Presidency, having never been elected by anybody) at least Campbell was elected by the constituents of her riding, but she never won a national election.
So, Germany and the UK are the only white western countries I can think of that have actually elected a female national leader, and the UK is the only one I can think of that's actually re-elected one (that would be Lady Thatcher).

_________________

Depends on how "open" the candidate was about their sexuality. For me, I consider myself "open" even though I don't strut around waving a rainbow flag with me everywhere I go. I consider it something that's best left to the bedroom, and I don't bring it up unless asked or if I feel it's appropriate for the conversation. Though of course, there is something of a double standard for gays in which, according to some people, anytime we homos talk about our boyfriends or girlfriends we're allegedly "flauting it," but heterosexual people can talk with each other about their girlfriends, boyfriends, wives, husbands, and all the things they do in the bedroom, and it's just normal chit-chat amongst friends for them... When gays try to participate in that same conversation, we're shunned for it and told that we're "flaunting" our sexuality, and I think that smells of bovine manure....but I'm getting rather off-topic, so someone toastpaint.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Personally, I wouldn't have trouble voting for an openly gay president, so long as they didn't flaunt it... My definition of "flaunting it" involves the whole sterotypical "parade" gay. A male president that says "my husband and I" would seem a little strange, but I don't know that I'd have a problem with it (especially if that was the biggest problem in his presidency).
PMG, you're right, whole notion of you "flaunting" your sexuality by talking about your significant other IS a BS double standard.

Like you said, though, that's a different topic for a different thread.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.